Comments on: The Southerngospelblog.com Traditional/Progressive Rating System

By: Daniel J. Mount

Daniel J. Mount — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:33:41 +0000

Mary,

That’s a good point. I can give the rating and note the exceptions!

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:10:44 +0000

Susan- Yes, I overreacted and apologize. BUT,I’ve seen Daniel do ‘descriptive reviews’ that highlight the good in CD’s that are not quartet/traditional.
One example is a review of Eighth Day’s “Heading Home” CD on sogospellovers.com.
DBM- By the way,I used to be an Isaacs fan. They were “my group”. There was NONE better. But, Big Sky is not what they used to be: good bluegrass. It’s very country, and for an old Isaacs fan, I can’t quite comprehend their style switch, and can’t bring myself to like it. For people who have never heard their older projects, such as “Carry Me”, “Bridges”, “Increase My Faith”, and (the best, in my opionion) “Peices Of Our Past”, could well fall in love with “Songs of Faith”, “Heroes” , and now “Big Sky”.
Certainly, It would be good to mention in a review the simillarity of the song “Walk On” to their past material, and that it stands out from the generallization of the whole. Yet the whole CD is not like that, and a generall lable of “Country Gospel” would be usefull in
such a case to describe the entire recording.
That is what I interpeted Daniel as meaning when he brought up the whole idea. Of course, he’d better note the best in a CD, and any stylistic differences from the majority of the songs.

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:18:16 +0000

Mary, I could tell you to “chill out” too, but since this is a discussion and I was discussing with Daniel, I don’t see any need to get defensive or agressive. Especially since I am quite chilled and comfortable.

Daniel has time and time again noted his own preference and prejudice towards traditional southern gospel music and most preferably towards traditional quartet music. So much so, that he tends to forget that history shows us that traditional includes much more than quartet music. That and that alone was my point. Though, I am fairly certain Daniel understands my point even if you do not.

I am of the opinion (not that anyone may care, but since this blog asks for opinions, I feel free to express mine) that labels only hinder the industry and continue to box the genre into boundaries that keep it from growing. If you plant a few flower seeds into a pot they will grow there but never get any bigger. But if you allow their boundaries to grow, soon you no longer have a few flowers that only you enjoy but you have a garden from which many can share.

I understand Daniel’s desire to provide an accurate review, but like DBM, I think that labels on an entire project aren’t really accurate. Be descriptive in the review. That’s enough.

By: David Bruce Murray

David Bruce Murray — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:55:59 +0000

I can see some fans who might prefer both angles, and you’re never going to be able to satisfy all of them. Some don’t like labels of any sort, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t write a decent review unless you’re descriptive.

You might say one song reminds you of a song Rodney Crowell recorded called “She’s Crazy For Leaving.” That’s a very specific description, but that’s a label too.

I think what some people dislike are broad generic labels where no one really agrees on the definition in the first place. My approach in writing reviews is different from what Daniel is attempting to do. I try to use very specific descriptions of songs within the review itself. I can see how some fans might appreciate an overall label for the whole CD, but the fact is most CDs contain more than one type of song. The Isaacs’ _Big Sky_ CD, for example, might be labeled “Country” overall, but there’s so much more to it. The song “Walk On” is classic Isaacs…an upbeat Bluegrass style in the vein of “I’m Gonna Move” that they recorded years ago. So my gut feeling is that it isn’t particularly good to use a general label for an entire CD and in doing so, make the reader assume they wouldn’t like it at all.

I prefer to encourage readers to listen to styles they think they might not like, because that’s the only way you’re going to grow as a music consumer and learn to appreciate more than one confined style of music.

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:19:34 +0000

Good grief, chill out Susan !
One needs to have a labelling system like what Daniel is suggesting for those who don’t know about a certain group’s style.
For example, if I was a new person to our music, and saw a favorable review on someone’ blog of the Isaacs’ new project, I may want to buy it. BUT, If I was a fan of the Kingsmen, and never heard the other types of music that fall under the broad “umbrella” of what is called Southern Gospel Music, I might assume I’d like it just because I saw a good review on a Southern Gospel web-site.
Once I’d get the project, I would most likely be VERY dissappointed, since the Isaacs and the Kingsmen are totally different.
Such is needed NOT to show bias or favoritism, for the positive in each recording and group needs to be pointed out, since there’s way too much emphasis on the negative. I for one think that Daniel does an excellent job of doing such.
The trash-talk and useless nit-picking within this industry is often what drives people away. DO WE REALLY NEED THAT?????????
Now that I’m off of my so called “soap-box”, I’ll end like this.
I think that such a classification system is vital to help the fans so they know what to expect in a project, and werther or not they want to support the industry by buying a certain album.

By: Susan

Susan — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:34:29 +0000

Daniel, you have always refused to accept the fact that southern gospel has ALWAYS been more than quartet based. Read your history!

By: Daniel J. Mount

Daniel J. Mount — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:24:26 +0000

But on the other hand, keeping that distinctively quartet-based sound is what keeps it Southern Gospel.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:16:42 +0000

I find the whole idea of labels confining period. I would rather see a CD reviewed for its merits without having to fall into a label. A good review is going to point out where a CD leans within the review itself and shouldn’t need a label. Labels confine a genre, they don’t expand it.

SG doesn’t need to be kept inside its already too narrow box if it wishes to appeal to a larger mass. And like it or not, appealing to a larger mass is what keeps it alive.

By: Paul Jackson

Paul Jackson — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:22:32 +0000

I think I’m going to blog about the old terms: Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, Black or Soulful Gospel, Contemporary, Inspirational, Sacred, MOR.

George King once told me that a couple of my songs were “Southern/Inspirational” and thus somewhat unique.
Is there something wrong with an eclectic CD in SG?…or from an SG group?…just asking!

Yes, I will blog on this soon. Thanks Daniel for “stirring the pot” a little…and in your respectful way.

Paul Jackson / The Prophets
http://www.pauljacksongroup.com/blog/

By: Gospel hog

Gospel hog — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:08:07 +0000

10 is overkill…5 is just right. Make more specific comments in your review copy. We appreciate your effort to inform us…of course a review is a review: One man’s opinion…I’m with DBM on this one.